1. Detecting and Eliminating
Bad International Higher Education Strategy
David Graham, Ph.D.
Senior Advisor to the President on International Strategy
Concordia University
Montreal, QC
Canada
APAIE 2014, Seoul, South Korea

2. Introduction
 Overview of our session
 Overview of this presentation
 Key definitions (“internationalization” and
“strategy”, and their characteristics)

3. Overview of Our Three-Part Session
 Part 1 (David Graham)
 Learn why bad strategy is so prevalent, how to recognize it,
and what to do about it
 Part 2 (Eric Deschamps)
 Understand how entrepreneurialism is impacting
international education and what that means for our
students, international offices, and institutions
 Part 3 (Hans Pohl)
 Will discuss different methods to bring the measurement of
internationalisation closer to its actual impact in terms of
diversity

4. Overview of this Presentation
 Definitions
 “Internationalization” and “Strategy”
 Diagnosis: what bad strategy is; how to recognize it
 What it is
 In a nutshell, sloppy thinking that masquerades as strategy
 Recognizing bad strategy and understanding how it arises
 Bad strategy has several diagnostic features
 It’s so easy to do! Good strategy is hard work
 Prognosis: The dangers of bad strategy
 It hinders the development of good strategy
 It can lead to catastrophe
 Prescription: Recovering from bad strategy
 Steps to success

5. Two Fundamental Definitions
Internationalization
 “Internationalization is a process of integrating an international,
intercultural, and global dimension into the goals, functions, and
delivery of higher education.” (Jane Knight, “Five Truths About
Internationalization.” IHE 69.)
Strategy
 “The term ‘strategy’ should mean a cohesive response to an
important challenge. Unlike a stand-alone decision or a goal, a
strategy is a coherent set of analyses, concepts, policies,
arguments, and actions that respond to a high-level challenge.”
(Richard Rumelt. Good Strategy, Bad Strategy)
 “The core of strategy work is always the same: discovering the
critical factors in a situation and designing a way of coordinating
and focusing actions to deal with those factors.” (Ibid.)

6. Offshore
Holistic Internationalization
Programs
International
Means
Mobility
Inbound
Outbound
Recruit
Exchange
Exchange
Study-abroad
Inbound
Outbound
Recruit
Retain
Research
Leaves
Internationalized
Curriculum
Articulated
Joint
Dual
Partnerships
Exchanges
Joint ventures
Faculty upgrading
Knowledge transfer
Alumni relations
Government relations
Conferences
Alone or shared
With or without infrastructure

7. Characteristics of a
True International Strategy
High-level
 Operating at the institutional policy level, not at the operational or
transactional level
Long-term
 Robust, and able to accommodate unforeseen contingencies;
“good for the long haul”
Pervasive
 Affecting and mobilizing all sectors of operations
Influential
 Taken into account in the course of all major decision-making
processes (not determinative, but always a factor to be considered)
7

8. The Claim to an “International Strategy” is Common
Source:“Comparing International Student and Institutional
Objectives at Canadian Colleges and Universities: Implications
for Institutional Strategy” (Skinkle, Embleton, and Hewitt 2012)

9. Diagnosis:
Defining and Recognizing Bad Strategy
 Richard Rumelt’s four categories of “bad strategy”
 Some typical examples
 Characteristic symptoms to look for

10. Rumelt’s Components of Bad
Strategy Fluff
Undefined
Challenge
Wrong
Objectives
Goals ≠
Strategy
Bad StrategyLet’s see some real-life examples

11. Example 1: Fluff
“International activities and collaborations enhance the quality
of research and education at [University], and improve its
competitive position. Internationalisation is a process
responding to internationalism and globalisation. It includes
both local and international aspects, and serves as a tool to
attain the high standards and promote innovative knowledge
creation which are the core principles of the university.
[University] is far from alone as universities increase
international outreach and focus, but none will have an
identical “web” to [University]’s. This web is built on the
strengths of our researchers and teachers, on their potential
leadership, and on the unique perspective each brings to the
problems and questions they address.”

12. Rumelt’s Four Signs of Bad Strategy (1)
1. Use of fluff
 “Fluff is a form of gibberish masquerading as strategic
concepts or arguments.”

13. Example 2:
Failure to face the challenge
“[University]’s focus is to substantially increase international
student enrollment in the next five years, continue and expand our
academic preparatory programs, enhance our support services for
international students and ensure that global engagement activities
are in cooperation with local community organizations that have a
global outlook.
The Global Engagement Strategy (GES) is a new initiative at
[University] to prepare all graduates to be citizens of the world.
Since the goal is to increase the population of international students
at [University], this initiative will focus on the support services for
international students and make sure that global engagement can
be felt in some way by all students, faculty and staff. The
establishment of global engagement programming differentiates
[University] among other universities.”

14. Rumelt’s Four Signs of Bad Strategy (2)
1. Use of fluff
 “Fluff is a form of gibberish masquerading as strategic
concepts or arguments.”
2. Failure to face the challenge
 “When you cannot define the challenge, you cannot
evaluate a strategy or improve it.”

15. Example 3:
Mistaking goals for strategy
“By helping to situate [University] firmly within the
international context, the plan enhances [University]’s
ability to achieve a number of critical objectives including:
1. developing our capacity to establish strong collaborative
research initiatives and to stimulate innovative research of benefit
to Canada and the world in an increasingly competitive funding
environment;
2. meeting the expressed needs of students, faculty and
administrators to understand their work within a global setting;
3. ensuring that teaching, learning, research and service are as
current as possible, based upon existing realities of and
developments both within and well beyond Canada; and
4. attracting students and faculty of the highest calibre to
[University].”

16. Rumelt’s Four Signs of Bad Strategy (3)
1. Use of fluff
 “Fluff is a form of gibberish masquerading as strategic
concepts or arguments.”
2. Failure to face the challenge
 “When you cannot define the challenge, you cannot
evaluate a strategy or improve it.”
3. Mistaking goals for strategy
 “Many bad strategies are just statements of desire rather
than plans for overcoming obstacles.”

17. Example 4:
Bad strategic objectives
“Under the Strategy, the Government of Canada will
work with the provinces and territories, Canadian
educational institutions, and other stakeholders to double
the size of our international student base from 239,131 in
2011 to more than 450,000 by 2022 (without displacing
Canadian students). Increasing the number of
international students to more than 450,000 will create
new sources of jobs, economic growth and prosperity in
every region of the country.”

18. Rumelt’s Four Signs of Bad Strategy (4)
1. Use of fluff
 “Fluff is a form of gibberish masquerading as strategic
concepts or arguments.”
2. Failure to face the challenge
 “When you cannot define the challenge, you cannot
evaluate a strategy or improve it.”
3. Mistaking goals for strategy
 “Many bad strategies are just statements of desire rather
than plans for overcoming obstacles.”
4. Bad strategic objectives
 “Strategic objectives are ‘bad’ when they fail to address
critical issues or when they are impracticable.”

19. Symptomatic Weaknesses to Look For
 Missing pieces
 Key problems or barriers to success are omitted or avoided
 The strategic challenge is often not identified or is left unstated
 There are no clearly defined actions, targets, and measurements
 The authors use soft or “flabby” language (“enhance”, “improve”)
 Magical thinking
 Especially about quantitative issues: time frames, resources needed
 Failure to assign responsibility for outcomes
 Assuming the conclusion
 Internationalization is often assumed to be important
 It’s essential to state why internationalization (as opposed to other
activities) is a necessary component of the response to a challenge
 Essential to explain why the goals are important
 Confusing implementation or operation with strategy
 Do we need a strategy or an operational plan?

20. Prognosis: Very Poor if Untreated
(Why Bad Strategy Drives Out Good,
and Why This is so Dangerous)
 Bad strategy is not just the absence of good strategy
 It is easier than good strategy
 Promising much, claiming to cost little, it has a
seductive appeal
 This combination of characteristics makes it very
dangerous for institutional well-being

21. 1. Bad Strategy Has a Life of Its Own
 In other words, it is more than just the absence of good
strategy
“Bad strategy has a life and logic of its own, a false edifice built
on mistaken foundations. Bad strategy may actively avoid
analyzing obstacles because a leader believes that negative
thoughts get in the way. Leaders may create bad strategy by
mistakenly treating strategy work as an exercise in goal setting
rather than problem solving. Or they may avoid hard choices
because they do not wish to offend anyone—generating a bad
strategy that tries to cover all the bases rather than focus
resources and actions.” (Rumelt)
 Because of this, it can easily come to dominate

22. 2. It’s Also Much Easier than Good
Strategy
Easier Harder
List Aspirations and
Accomplishments
Identify the Strategic Challenge
Claim Value for Them Understand its Implications
Identify a Resource Gap Develop a Coherent Plan of Action
Lay Claim to the Resources
Assign Responsibility and
Resourcing
Promise New Accomplishments Execute and Assess the Plan

23. 3. Bad Strategy is Seductive
 Bad Strategy is “Feel Good Strategy”: inoffensive, easy
to love, undemanding, it glosses over the difficulties
“Students at [University] come from over 150 countries, and help
create a rich environment for every member of the university. Programs,
teaching, and opportunities to learn in a wide spectrum of contexts
complement this richness, providing a basis for adaptability, academic
rigour, and openness.”
 Bad Strategy avoids responsibility altogether, or locates it
elsewhere (or everywhere, and thus nowhere)
“No internationalisation plan can hope for success without the
participation of a wide array of administrative units. The reach of
internationalisation crosses every sector of the administration and life
within the university: recruitment, student services, academic programs,
research networks, student mobility, international partnerships,
government relations, a strong advisory capacity, hosting delegations,
etc. All together, these activities can strengthen the university for all of
its members.”

24. 4. Bad Strategy is Dangerous
By definition:
Any challenge is a test of ability; whether of skill, strength,
power, wit, nimbleness, agility, speed, reaction time, or
resources̵
 “Generally, when demands outweigh resources, threat
results; when resources approximate or exceed demands,
challenge results.” (Blascovich et al., “Stigma, Threat, and
Social Interactions,” 2000; emphasis added)
A “strategic challenge” is almost always about
institutional sustainability: high-level, medium- to long-
term, and broad
 in other words, it has far-reaching implications
 If not met, a strategic challenge may thus become a threat
with potentially serious negative consequences

25. In Other Words, Bad Strategy Can
Lead You Over a Cliff
Challenge
Identified
Adequate Response
Failure
Optimal
Response
Maintenance
Decline
Improvement

26. Never Forget: Internationalization
is Not Risk-Free!

27. Prescription:
Recovering from Bad Strategy
 Defining the challenge
 Making the pitch for an international strategy
 Developing a plan
 Implementation

28. Creating Good Strategy: Steps to Success
1. Define the institutional strategic challenge
 Almost certainly, it will involve institutional sustainability (the
ability to continue operating as at present)
2. Decide whether internationalization is part of the
answer
 For some challenges, certainly, but not all
3. If it is, make the strongest possible pitch to your boss
 How can you maximize your chances of being heard?
4. Know how to create the best conditions for successful
development and implementation
 Consultation, responsibility assignment, follow-through
 This part is left as an exercise for the audience!

29. 1. Define the Strategic Challenge
 For public institutions, it will almost certainly involve
some combination of the following limiting factors:
 Finances (public funding, tuition, donor support)
 Demography (the recruitment pool for students and faculty)
 Government regulation (constraints on resource access)
 Accreditation (requires sustained academic standards)
 Competition (for resources of all kinds)
 Reputation (enables recruitment of students, faculty, donors)
 These individual challenges are inextricably linked and
mutually reinforcing

30. There’s no Shortage of Challenges

31. In Short, the News is Not Good!

32. Sample Strategic Challenge: Finances
Change in USA State Appropriations, FY09–14
Source:
http://grapevine.illinoisstate.edu/tables/FY14/Table2_GPV14.pdf
ND
IL
CA
LA
AZ
TX
NY
―Spending [by state governments] per
full-time public [higher education]
student fell by an average of 26
percent in real terms between 1990-91
and 2009-10.‖ (Suzanne Mettler,
―College, the Great Unleveler,‖ NYT,
1 Mar 2014)

33. Sample Challenge: Demography
University-Age Population Shrinkage in Canada
http://www2.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/pop_growth_cohorts.png
Note net shrinkage of
the 15–24 age group

34. Implications of an Aging Population
 If not met, a strategic challenge may lead to a ―challenge
cascade‖ as consequences pile up:
 If the university-age population declines by 30%, and if our attendance
falls similarly, so will our funding
 Because most of our budget is tied up in salaries, this would entail
serious (and painful) consequences, including massive layoffs and
program cuts
 This could lead in turn to significant reputational damage, making it even
harder to attract new students, especially good ones
 As academic standards fall, recruitment becomes even harder
 Shrinkage is so painful that it is almost always preferable to take
up the challenge and meet the shortfall in some other way
 This means expanding our recruitment pool (options include linguistic,
age group, geographic pool)
 This in turn brings new challenges: how to maintain academic standards,
provide adequate academic and psychosocial support structures, fund
our expanded recruitment efforts…

35. Institutional Sustainability Challenge Cascade
Loss of quality
(overconcentration of
students, declining
admission standards,
lessened support) leads
inevitably to
reputational impact
Academic
Reputational
Loss of reputational advantage
complicates recruitment; incentives
have to be offered to keep numbers
up; finances are placed under stress
Financia
l
Weaker financing
makes it even harder to
sustain high standards
and strong student
support systems,
leading in the worst
case to the dreaded
―death spiral‖

36. 2. More Internationalization is not
Necessarily the Answer
If your institutional challenge is primarily:
Demographic
 increased holistic internationalization may well be an
essential part of meeting that challenge
Financial
 you will need to decide whether the bottom line from
internationalization will help or harm your institution
Regulatory
 internationalization may raise a warning flag
Related to accreditation
 especially if weak academic standards are involved, steer
clear of internationalization

37. 3. Successfully Pitching Your Plan
 Be optimistic but honest
 Couch the challenge in terms of institutional success
 After all, the point of a strategic plan is to meet the challenge successfully!
 Avoid using your plan as a disguised pitch for more resources
 Be clear, concrete, and specific (avoid fluff!)
 Say clearly what failure to meet the challenge will mean for the institution
 e.g., ―The alternative to this approach will be an immediate across-the-board 5%
budget cut‖ (actual quote from a CFO to a faculty Senate)
 ―Cookie-cutter templates‖ are no substitute for hard thinking about how to
meet the challenge
 Be realistic
 Avoid wishful, fuzzy, and magical thinking, unsupported assertions and
generalizations at all costs
 Define realistic goals that will have meaning to those who do the work
 Set out a program of coherent interlocking actions, and accept responsibility
for doing your share on time and within budget

38. Good Luck—Enjoy the Challenge!
Thank you
David Graham
✉︎david.graham@concordia.ca
@dgrahamqc